rainjack - I like your style.
This thread makes me want to grow a beard, eat red meat, and get in a fight.
As for the whole “changing gender roles” thing, I dare anyone to say that a woman with a tool belt isn’t sexy.
I guess I would also like to say that if I said anything that was interpreted as vulcan bashing that was not my intention. I am a very curious person; the questions I have asked are genuine. For example, I am still interested in hearing your post grad plans. I myself have recently entered grad school; I finished up my Bachelor’s Spring 06.
I can also attest to the college experience being substantially different from what some are mentioning. There are some fields of study where one cannot live ones life in an alcoholic haze…we are not business majors! AHAHA just kidding…and even if I’m not don’t bitch you will probably make more money than me!
Someone mentioned that they felt society was better now than previously, and I guess they were implying that it is continually improving. I would need to seriously assess things in order to refute this (I would probably agree with you on society as a whole), but I will definitely state that some things are definitely much worse.
Most people don’t know how to put a hard day of work in anymore it seems. I have noticed this my entire life. People are being paid to render services but we just don’t care anymore. I talk to one of my buddies; has an engineering job and the guy claims 5 hours of legitimate work per week…
[quote]vulcan500rider wrote:
I know how to shut the fuck up when I don’t know what I’m talking about.[/quote]
No - you don’t. You have proven this inability with just about every post in this thread. You are not enlightened just because you say you are. You are not educated just because you say you are.
If you have no facts to bring to the table other than what you heard your professor say, or a book you read about a theory - then you need to shut the fuck up. This is where you lose all credibility. You are a kid talking about theories that have little bearing on the price of tea in China.
Theory means dick in the real world. Application of theory into a marketable asset has a premium value.
Surely one as well read as you can understand this most basic concept.
No, you don’t advise me in weight training because you have not read enough theory on the subject.
I have taken some advanced genetic classes. I am based way more in reality than the theories you are so proud of.
[quote]You’re working off pure gut reaction to a concept right now without having any foundation in theory. Would you offer an opinion on how to do squats if you had never even THOUGHT about form before? I sure as hell wouldn’t.
[/quote]
Who says I haven’t thought about it? Because I disagree with you? You have yet to disuade me from my original position. Maybe I need more fact and less theory.
Do you even know how to debate, or are we just supposed to sit here with dropped jaws marveling at your exceedingly superior intelligence?
The fact reamins - you are a starry eyed kid. I am an adult that has actually lived life, a fairly well educated life if that makes any difference to you.
To use the weight lifting example of yours: You are attempting to tell me that unless I lift the exact same way you do - I am an idiot because I won’t try new things. In fact - I have lifted the way you do, and I found that it sucks.
Or to use my analogy that is much more appropriate: You are a yapping little mut that just won’t shut the fuck up.
[quote]oboffill wrote:
It seems to me that those of you whine the most about this topic are nothing more than insecure boys. Grow up.
Stop acting like you weight train for a reason other than to get noticed by women, which is exactly what ‘metrosexuals’ do, but with style and fashion.
[/quote]
Is this your own personal crusade?
How many times do you have to be told that nearly ALL serious weightlifters lift for reasons other than women.
I personally lift because I think it’s fun. I love doing it. I love picking up heavy shit, and couldn’t care less whether the cardio bunnies think it’s hot or whether they’re repulsed by my lack of a six-pack.
Seriously, do you think you know my motivations better than I do? Are you really THAT closed-minded?
[quote]vulcan500rider wrote:
How much gender theory have you taken? Have you read the work of Connell, or even Freud? Give it a try and see what you think of it. You’re working off pure gut reaction to a concept right now without having any foundation in theory. Would you offer an opinion on how to do squats if you had never even THOUGHT about form before? I sure as hell wouldn’t.[/quote]
I will, and I’ll tell you why: Gender Theory is pure bullshit.
It is not a science, and thus doesn’t deserve to be called a “Theory”. You cannot form a hypothesis and test it according to “Gender Theory”. You can’t use the scientific method on “Gender Theory”. Hell, you can’t even quantify “Gender Theory”!
So what does that make “Gender Theory”? It makes it an opinion. Some schmuck made some observations, read some books, and spewed forth “Gender Theory”. There is ZERO true scientific backing for this “theory”. That’s why the curriculum is offered in the ENGLISH department rather than a hard social science.
Observations alone do not make a theory. And as far as “Gender Theory” is concerned, even the anecdotal evidence is pretty flimsy.
If “masculine” is a pure, abstract social construct, then why do men assume similar societal roles in virtually every society in virtually every time period? If it is a societal construct, yet EVERY society “constructs” masculinity is a similar way, why on Earth do “Gender Theorists” then assign masculinity to society? If changing the societal variables have NO effect on general male behavior, wouldn’t it seem more logical to assume masculinity has a more genetic origin than societal one?
Did “Gender Theorists” raise some babies in a white room devoid of any inputs to determine that babies really truly are blank slates? That devoid of any social interaction, men are just as likely to act “feminine” as “masculine”? Of course they didn’t. So they don’t have anyreal evidence on this matter.
Gender Theory is a half-baked, poorly rationalized opinion, and to apply it to such a narrow subject as “The Feminization of the American Male circa 2000” is flat-out incorrect.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
vulcan500rider wrote:
nephorm wrote:
They act, react, smell, look, touch, feel, and taste differently.[/quote]
um, how big is the sample size of men you have tasted and women you have tasted?
j/k
This has been a fascinating thread.
Vulcan,
I don’t neccessarily agree with what you say but I think you’ve made the thread more interesting and handled your critics well.
It’s 4AM, I can’t sleep, and “Queen of Swords” is on TV. I’m not sure how a hot chick with big boobs saving the world with a sword plays into this whole discussion but as a T-man I will not hesitate to share with the board that I’d like to bone her. In addition I’d like some red meat and a beer. I plan to deadlift tommorow.
Long live Testosterone. Goodnight T-Gents.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
vulcan500rider wrote:
How much gender theory have you taken? Have you read the work of Connell, or even Freud? Give it a try and see what you think of it. You’re working off pure gut reaction to a concept right now without having any foundation in theory. Would you offer an opinion on how to do squats if you had never even THOUGHT about form before? I sure as hell wouldn’t.
I will, and I’ll tell you why: Gender Theory is pure bullshit.
It is not a science, and thus doesn’t deserve to be called a “Theory”. You cannot form a hypothesis and test it according to “Gender Theory”. You can’t use the scientific method on “Gender Theory”. Hell, you can’t even quantify “Gender Theory”!
So what does that make “Gender Theory”? It makes it an opinion. Some schmuck made some observations, read some books, and spewed forth “Gender Theory”. There is ZERO true scientific backing for this “theory”. That’s why the curriculum is offered in the ENGLISH department rather than a hard social science.
Observations alone do not make a theory. And as far as “Gender Theory” is concerned, even the anecdotal evidence is pretty flimsy.
If “masculine” is a pure, abstract social construct, then why do men assume similar societal roles in virtually every society in virtually every time period? If it is a societal construct, yet EVERY society “constructs” masculinity is a similar way, why on Earth do “Gender Theorists” then assign masculinity to society? If changing the societal variables have NO effect on general male behavior, wouldn’t it seem more logical to assume masculinity has a more genetic origin than societal one?
Did “Gender Theorists” raise some babies in a white room devoid of any inputs to determine that babies really truly are blank slates? That devoid of any social interaction, men are just as likely to act “feminine” as “masculine”? Of course they didn’t. So they don’t have anyreal evidence on this matter.
Gender Theory is a half-baked, poorly rationalized opinion, and to apply it to such a narrow subject as “The Feminization of the American Male circa 2000” is flat-out incorrect.[/quote]
wow. GREAT post.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
As for the whole “changing gender roles” thing, I dare anyone to say that a woman with a tool belt isn’t sexy.
[/quote]
That chic is hot! And so Amy Wynn from Trading Spaces. Bu I love funtional women.
My posting it had nothing to do with the political bent of it, though I knew someone would decide to pick it apart on just that basis. The article was written by a right wing naturalized American during the height of the political fervor of the Iraq war. So what? I’m not interested in the author’s politics in this thread. Why are you?
The meat of the argument stands. It has recently become perfectly acceptable to discriminate against men and to attempt to make them feel guilty for being who they biologically are (all gender “theory” aside). Do you disagree with this? Is it possible to agree on what we agree on, and not worry about irrelevant issues upon which we don’t?
[quote]Digital Chainsaw wrote:
shawninjapan wrote:
This is pretty long, but very, very worth the read and completely on topic re. the feminization of the modern male.
I’d give it a C-. Some of his thoughts on how the younger generation is being raised sans gender roles and playing cops and robbers to instill basic values is good stuff.
If he had kept his political cock-sucking out of it, it would have been far more effective.
And finally, our President, who happens to have been a qualified fighter pilot, lands on an aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit, and is immediately dismissed with words like ?swaggering?, ?macho? and the favorite epithet of Euro girly-men, ?cowboy?.
Can’t recall ever hearing any of these adjectives applied to W in this particular event.
I recall terms like “phony”, “deserter”, and “douche”, but never “swaggering”, or “macho”.
And women know it. You want to know why I know this to be true? Because powerful men still attract women. Women, even liberal women, swooned over George Bush in a naval aviator?s uniform.
WTF???
Donald Trump still gets access to some of the most beautiful pussy available, despite looking like a medieval gargoyle.
Uh, yeah, because he can buy the pussy. What the hell does this have to do with being manly?
Donald Rumsfeld, if he wanted to, could fuck 90% of all women over 50 if he wanted to, and a goodly portion of younger ones too.
Wow, I’m beginning to think this guy has a raging sexual attraction for these guys. Who in their right mind looks at Donald Rumsfeld and thinks, “man, I bet chicks want to fuck him!”???
[/quote]
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
…
Gender Theory is a half-baked, poorly rationalized opinion, and to apply it to such a narrow subject as “The Feminization of the American Male circa 2000” is flat-out incorrect.[/quote]
How anyone could waste their life studying such BS is beyond my understanding.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Did “Gender Theorists” raise some babies in a white room devoid of any inputs to determine that babies really truly are blank slates? That devoid of any social interaction, men are just as likely to act “feminine” as “masculine”? Of course they didn’t.[/quote]
Anyone who has had kids, especially if they had a boy and a girl, as I have, can easily see that the “gender roles” are not just some artificial societal construct. Even very young, they don’t act or play the same way.
Give them Legos, and the girl makes little houses with trees; the boy makes swords and guns. When he makes a house, it’s generally in anticipation of destroying it a few minutes later.
Give them dolls and the girl tends to “play mommy”, feeding and dressing them. The boy seems to prefer seeing how many limbs and heads he can pull off.
My wife is always horrified that our boy makes guns out of everything. Legos, paper, Play-Doh, crooked branches found in the yard. My older daughter, who’s been exposed to the same TV images and whatever other media where guns are displayed has zero interest for them.
When I read them bedtime stories, my daughter likes tales about princesses and stuff like Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast. While her younger brother will listen to those, if he gets to choose, he much prefers the book that talks about dinosaurs. There’s no story, but he’s fascinated by those giant beasts “big like a house.”
Boys and girl are simply different. They are definitely not identical brains in different packages. They approach similar situations differently, solve similar problems differently. They are different through and through. It’s not learned, it’s built-in.
Boy the bunk that comes out as education
"Typically, in a patriarchal society, men and molded to become a direct opposition to femininity, because that helps in the oppression of women. Men are modeled to be strong, to imply women become weak. Men are raised assertive, to make women submissive, and so on. Conforming to these roles unconsciously only perpetuates the stupidity.
I’m not saying that men shouldn’t be strong, or assertive. What I’m saying is that men are still men regardless of how physically dominant or mentally assertive they are. PEOPLE should be strong and mentally assertive. The only thing that makes you “manly” dangles between your legs–everything else is a result of your personal choice to conform to what others tell you to be."
My wife, who is a successful business woman on her own can’t stand the metrosexual. when we were dating she asked me my opinion on colors for decorating the living room. I said men were put on this earth to conquer it and women to clean up and decorate afterward. She married me so I guess she’s OK with that.
Years ago some community made the decision to give the boys dolls and other girlie toys and the girls footballs and such. The boys twisted the dolls into the shape of guns and chased each other while shooting their dolls. The girls likewise dressed their footballs like babies and coddled them.
Point is a strong woman is not threatened by a strong man and vis-versa. They don’t need to change the roles they were created to fill. We are different for a reason
[quote]John S. wrote:
bluepulse wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Hahaha. Well, Sly said it right.
We need another big war or something to beat “The Gay” out of guys…
The one thing I can say is that I think the trend is reversing a bit- people are getting tired of the meterosexuals and all that. Being tougher is starting to seperate us from the crowd, and the women are beginning to like old school guys again I believe.
The pendulum will swing back…and then hopefully break and fall off.
Bring back the draft and rid ourselves of this “Pussification of America” I think every American male should at least complete Basic Training. You’ll learn survival, cpr,discipline,organization, and respect.
I agree.[/quote]
I disagree. I am going to get flamed so bad, but soldiers are not the epitome of manliness.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
As for the whole “changing gender roles” thing, I dare anyone to say that a woman with a tool belt isn’t sexy.
[/quote]
Not sexy.
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
I’ve just had a minor revelation - I don’t think about this kind of thing very much, lol. I think that a lot of those devastatingly beautiful, shallow, ‘social butterfly’ type women who go out with metro / emo guys do it not because they necessarily find them attractive (although since they probably get most of their ideas from fashion magazines and have little original opinion, they probably think that they find them attractive), but simply because it is fashionable to do so. Sorry if this is obvious, lol. As I say, I don’t spend much time thinking of such things…[/quote]
And dont forget something else… Wether someone is manly, metro, bi or closet gay… Money gets you pussy, hot ones.
Isn’t there a relationship between being metro and your income. Doesn’t one need money to have the sharp clothes. I don’t see hard working mothers getting their nails done professionally every week. It are the pretty ones that get maintained by guys with money that do that. Who themselves probably are a lot more metro than a regular hardworking guy with a simple job.
Isn’t metro, for some people, just a status symbol for having money. A way to say that you are so well off you don’t need to work hard. And wealth in turn is an afrodisiac for women.
Of course this only counts for those men that really are loaded. For poor guys to be metro is either that they “want” to look wealthy, are girly men or are closet bis. 
[quote]vulcan500rider wrote:
MikeTheBear wrote:
I’d say who’ve had more real-life experience than the average college kid. Yes, the real world sucks, which means you should take this time in college to learn to think critically. You obviously don’t buy all of what this class is teaching yet you’re being open-minded and thinking about it while being around a bunch of construction guys. This is good.
As for the differences between the way boys and girls/men and women think, yes they are there. No doubt in my mind about this. The problem is how far do we take this approach? Is it really true that boys are better in math than girls? My daughter is great at math, yet she also likes lots of girly things so I’m not worried that she’ll “go gay” later in life. And what about music? Would you consider a guy who likes classical music manly or metro? Before you answer, think about the fact that studies have suggested that has found correlation between musical ability and math ability. Beethoven was able to compose even when he became deaf because he found mathematical relationships between the notes.
The guys that go for the metro thing are followers. If the trend were back to the grunge thing and it became “hip” to wear flannel and lift weights, these same guys would be following that trend. Sure, on the surface they would appear more “manly,” but it would be just that - an appearance. They’d still be followers blindly going after the latest trend to become “popular” or accepted.
They would still lack the ability that shows true character and emotional maturity - the ability to think for themselves. This is what makes leaders and creates success in the real world. This is the problem with society - lack of critical, independent thinkers who have drive and initiative. Metrosexuality is just a symptom of this problem.
Thankyou for an interesting and intelligent post, Mike. To answer you, I think your problems with my argument are not necessarily IN my argument. I’m not arguing FOR metrosexuality. I’m arguing that in order to be considered a man, males should not have to conform to a predetermined “macho” role. In fact, I fully agree that metrosexuality is a pose, for the most part…however, I think that aligning oneself as a polar opposite to metrosexuality, merely to get as far away from it as possible has horrible ramifications for personal identity. A man straining to be something he is not is always going to be disappointed, regardless of whether his goal is to be he-man, or a southern bell.
I would consider both your daughter’s interest in math, and any male’s interest in classical music to have little or nothing to do with their gender role. I don’t think it is an interest in “girly things” that makes a woman a woman, nor an interest in “manly” things that makes a man become a man, nor do I believe that it predetermines sexual orientation. Regardless of what your daughter is into, I don’t think that there is much chance she will “go gay” unless she is sexually attracted toward women.
As for my other criticizers, I’m not sure where you got racist from. Noteably, red-neck is not necessarily based on race; it is based on ignorance, at least where I come from. If it has other connotations where you are, I apologize. And as a sidenote, aren’t you making comments on my intelligence and ability from behind your keyboard? How is it different when I do it?
At any rate, I can refute your entire argument with one sentence:
I PAY MY OWN WAY. That’s right, I get 0 help from “Mommy and Daddy,” and haven’t since I moved out at age 18. It means that I have to work my ass off, as well as accumulating student loans, but it all sits squarely on MY shoulders. I also operate a small business on the side, building and repairing computers. I don’t do wonderfully, but it pays for my protein. As for considering myself wonderful or more intelligent…far from it. I’m just more open-minded, quite obviously, evidenced by the fact that you feel the need to angrily attack rather than calmly discuss ideas that undermine your current paradigm. I’m also not saying that university makes people more intelligent–far from it. The stupid remain stupid, and the smart remain smart. University is merely a tool to help on one’s journey out of ignorance, if one so desires.
As for your comment ZedLeppin, consider a set of twins brothers, one put into an abusive, poverty stricken home, and one put into a loving, supportive, middle-class family in which the father is available and gentle. Which one is going to be more messed in the head and have major issues to deal with? Nature vs nurture just does not work.
As for what I hope to do with the idea of gender roles, and why it’s important? How many men have poor self-esteem that they need to artificially boost in order to feel good about themselves? Many self-esteem problems arise directly from an inconsistency between a boy’s abilities and society’s expectations on them. How do I know this? I have been a teaching assistant through every level of education, INCLUDING university. I have worked with more confused young men than I thought there were–which prompted me to look into masculinity studies. Not all men meet the normative standard of “hegemonic masculinity” (basically the pinnacle as a short summation of a VERY loaded term) In fact, damned FEW men meet that standard, and most fight inner battles between wanting to make their own way and dealing with the expectations or their fathers, and their societies.
My information does not come from ONE prof, because there are precisely zero profs teaching this at my university at the present time. Masculinity seems to be the big taboo subject that no one wants to touch, and the gross majority of men get angry (as you may notice in the responses to what I’ve said) when it is questioned. Looking at literature through the lens of gender theory lets people see how their gender roles have evolved and why. The goal? To eliminate pre-destined gender roles and replace them with equality, and a sense of personal choice. I would like to see a world where the boy who takes up ballet and does well (providing he can make money and pay his own way) is as valued as the one who becomes a mechanic, or a businessman (providing he can make money and make his own way–yes I meant to repeat myself for emphasis)
The true reason that I’m interested in most of this is simple: know thyself. I don’t like the idea of making choices based on preconceptions that are untrue, so I seek to illuminate truth for myself, and hopefully for others. My goal is one of freedom from self-oppression, even if it only ever makes it to those that I teach. Everything has to start somewhere.
Anyway, I will leave you to your continued flaming and go lift some weights. I have a feeling anything else I say will either be repeating myself, or falling on deaf ears. Cheers, all.[/quote]
I don’t care what anyone says, guys who do ballet are gay. Period. No amount of intellectual masturbating can change that.
[quote]Petedacook wrote:
MikeTheBear wrote:
As for the whole “changing gender roles” thing, I dare anyone to say that a woman with a tool belt isn’t sexy.
That chic is hot! And so Amy Wynn from Trading Spaces. Bu I love funtional women. [/quote]
But what about “functional women” who are not hot? What if she were 6’2", weighed 220 and looked like Nicole Bass? Would you still think she was hot?
The big difference here is that “feminine” men are still sexually desirable to some women, but “masculine” women are universally disliked by all men.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
I also watch football and laugh like a maniac at “guy humor” movies while my wife looks at me like I’m an idiot.
[/quote]
I read books, weep when emotionally moved, and think watching sports is a waste of time. I think playing video games is lame and that (except for its UFC coverage), SpikeTV is pathetic.
I also used to be a fighter and an officer in the military, I train hard in the weight room, I have a black belt in TKD and train BJJ.
Am I manly? Who knows? I’ll tell you what: I sure as hell don’t care whether someone considers me masculine or feminine.
Vulcanboy does make some good points. It’s hard to say what is masculine and what is feminine. Many roles are thrust onto people and there are numerous double standards.
Sexually active men are studs, sexually active women are sluts.
Women are discouraged from becoming fighters or participating in other “men’s sports.”
Still, I take exception with his arguments that men and women (as a group) are not different. Women have less testosterone - because of biology. Having less testosterone makes one less likely to want to fight and do other dumb things guys do.
I also take exception with ENGLISH MAJORS making such broad-sweeping points about biology.